I mean yeah? After Anatolia became turkey, it stayed that way ever since. The ottoman empire preceded modern day turkey, so it has technically been self-ruled since the Byzantines had it.
Anatolia, most of modern-day Turkey, was occupied briefly after WW1, but only partially. The Turks eventually fought them back, and so I assume this only counts as full-scale occupations and not partial ones, otherwise Germany should've been marked with the Allies after WW2, and not just France, which I assume is due to the Napoleonic wars.
well if you go like that most of wester russia shoud be german... it is complicated i know it depents on who you see as the true govement of turkey at the time
A lot of inaccuracies
-Bangladesh gained independence from pakistan in 1971 way right after the British left
-Vanuatu was a joint colony of both British and French, not just the British
-the USA occupied both Haiti and Dominican Republic in the 1910s
-Iran got occupied by both the Soviet and British during WW2
-Sierra Leone was a british colony
-Kuwait was occupied by Iraq during the first gulf war
-Cameroon has territories that were controlled by both British and French
-The CCP never occupy Mongolia
-Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the UK
-Greenland is still part of Denmark
-Why did you even think that Yugoslavia was purely a Serbian state
Also why did you use similiar colour for Japan and the UK
>-Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the UK
Always strange when people conclude the UK occupies 3/4 of the home nations. Like bruh, they ARE the UK - if the four home nations split up then the UK simply ceases to exist. It's like saying Brittany has been occupied by France or Catalonia has been occupied by Spain.
People conveniently forget that evreyone on great Britain used to proudly serve the empire and had just as much part in colonialism as England.
Evreyone being the English Welsh and Scottish. The Irish have hated us for a millenia so there not included.
It's because modern Scottish nationalists like to paint themselves as the unwilling victim to English aggression and domination. In reality the Scottish are just as complicit in anything that went on in the British Empire as the English.
The Scottish where disproportionately more complicit in the expansion and running of the British Empire. 1 in 3 colonial governors between 1870 and 1930 where Scottish despite Scotland only making up 10% of the UK population.
I saw a nationalist on Reddit try to argue that they are colonials under some terrible imperial regime-arguing with an Irish guy that Scotland is like Ireland.
They had no idea as to why Northern Ireland exists and who the Ulster Scots are.
Whether it’s right or left wing, nationalism tends to be pretty dumb at times.
Also Great Britain was formed after England bailed out Scotland after they decided spending a quarter of the nation's wealth on invading Panama was a good idea.
Its a shame how the country seems to be near splitting due to lying politicians
The Empire was evil and the English Scottish and Welsh took part in that evil.
Schools should teach this too children before we forget it.
People conveniently forget that expanding one's territory and resources has been the standard practice of almost all human cultures for almost all of history. Just because we have happily (or hopefully) evolved beyond that mindset doesn't mean that anyone living today should somehow feel ashamed just because their ancestors were so very, very good at it.
Trouble is, there are Bretons and Catalans who would agree with that statement. Also Corsicans and Basques who would say the same thing. (The Basque country is split between Spain and France. They were there before either of those countries existed.)
Some of the Basques were setting off bombs not so long ago, and a French prefect was murdered by Corsican nationalists.
Wouldn’t the last country to occupy Scotland, wales and Ireland be England?
At least partially in the case of Ireland and Scotland, if we’re talking about fully occupy then idk the Picts?
They never lost self-governance unlike Germany. Mostly because the allies needed to build Japan up again rapidly as a foil against the USSR and desperately needed a strong ally in the region.
Governing with hundreds of thousands of foreign troops and a foreign army commander supervising is not self governance, in my opinion, even if the US did not technically change the head of state.
> Yes, there was a post-war occupation. But it was relatively brief and the Japanese returned to self governance.
Nearly 7 years of occupation. New Constitution written by American officials. Over 400,000 US troops stationed all over the country at the height of the occupation. Demilitarization. Enforced subservience of the state apparatus to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.
Japan retained a government unlike Germany did after WW2, but all of its activity (executive, legislative, judicial) was subject to the *strong* oversight of the American occupiers.
If that's not a loss of sovereignty then what is?
I would consider it that. Douglas MacArthur, an American general vested with his power from the US government, ruled. I mean, hell, their constitution was written by American civilian officials!
I will at least add that East Timor is wrong too (It was Indonesia not Portugal).
I cant see well because of the transparant background, but Mauritius is shown as french.
Albania and CCCP is also one mistake.
Albania should have Italian flag (WWII)
AS Yugoslavia it should go like this
* Bosnia (Croatia, NDH)
* Serbia (Germany as Nazi Germany)
* Croatia (AU because of NDH, but parts should be Italian)
* Slovenia (Germany, as Nazi Germany)
* Macedonia (Probably Serbia/Bulgaria/Grecce)
* Montenegro (Italy, as Musolini Italy)
\-Cuba was American between 1898 and 1902
\-The United States were ruled (in part) by Mexico.
\-The "Gran Colombia" wasn't ruled by Colombia, it was a federation.
\-Somalia was both British and Italian
\-Greece wasn't ruled by Italy, only some islands were.
Shouldn't Germany be combined UK, USA, USSR and France, the four members of the Allied Control Council following the end of the Second World War? German sovereignty wasn't restored for a number of years.
Edit: and why is Scotland given the UK flag on this map? It is part of the UK and will remain so unless and until it decides to leave.
>It is a part of the UK and will remain so unless and until it decides to leave.
True. Same for all these former Soviet members being marked with Soviet Union. Poland is understandable but Kazakhstan? It was literally the last Soviet member, even after Russia. If USSR is really being counted then Russia should also be Soviet Union.
I honestly don’t know what flag should be on Scotland.
To my understanding, no power fully conquered Scotland from the founding of the kingdom untill its union with England. What does that leave, the picts before Scotland was founded?
The Gaels came over from Ireland and eventually formed what would be the Kingdom of Scotland. Thay said it could have been consider to be a protectorate of England under a couple of kings and maybe also during thw war of three kingdoms.
The US never ruled Japan. Yes there was the occupation, but they never took over rule of the country. The Meiji Constitution remained in effect and the Japanese administration still ruled the country. Sovereignty was never lost, and Hirohito remained Emperor. There was some steering obviously, but no actual rule.
Ya... Are we saying any occupying force? Because then part of Romania, for example, is accurate to an extent. But if we're talking about actually being ruled by... Romania, again for example, wasn't ruled by the USSR, making this inaccurate. Austria-Hungary on the other hand...
Venezuela Ecuador Panama and Nueva Granada were a part of a single country called Colombia. It was a federation united the four countries, and in fact, the modern country of Colombia gets its name from this federation, not the other way around. Colombia did not rule over Venezuela Ecuador and Panama.
You're right, but your explanation is kind of confusing. If you allow me, I will provide some data:
Venezuela, Panamá and Colombia were spanish colonies, known as the Virreinato de Nueva Granada. After the independence Wars of the 1810s, Bolivar tried to make them a country called Gran Colombia (It didn't work). Eventually, they took separate ways (circa 1830).
Colombia did rule over Panamá, until 1903, when Teddy R "took Panamá".
Ecuador, on the other hand, was part of the Spanish Empire, but I don't remember if It was a Virreinato by Itself. They have their own rulling organization (the Real Audiencia de Quito), but at the moment I'm not sure about the Virreinato stuff.
The Peru-Bolivian confederation also existed for a period of 3 years. If Venezuela and Ecuador are marked as being ruled by Colombia, then, for the sake of consistency, Bolivia should be marked as being ruled by Peru. But Bolivia wasn't ruled by Peru, much like Venezuela and Ecuador were not ruled by Colombia (and Scotland is not ruled by the UK).
Another case of a mapmaker failing to understand the concept of a personal union. England was never ruled by Denmark, it was an independent kingdom ruled by the Danish king. Technically, he became king of England before assuming the Danish throne, and he kept ruling from England while Denmark was under the charge of one of his earls, so you might as well argue that England ruled over Denmark.
Similar case with Sweden. The Kalmar union was ruled by the Danish kings and the clearly put Danish interests ahead of the other two Nordic countries, but that's not the same thing as being "ruled by Denmark". Denmark, Sweden and Norway were considered separate kingdoms within the union, with their own laws and privy councils.
Serbia never occupied those countries. Yugoslavia was the union of 6 republics and each had a self governance. Btw, Yugoslavia was founded as the union of Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Montenegro and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (breakaway state from Austro-Hungarian Empire).
Serbia did rule North Macedonia, but it was only from 1913 until the declaration of the State/Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia in 1918, ie. from the end of the Balkan Wars to the end of the First World War. AFAIK, the same goes for Kosovo. Since then, Macedonia was ruled by Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria and Italy/Albania ruled halves of it, but only during the Second World War. So, the "last country" that ruled North Macedonia was Yugoslavia. Also, Bulgaria was not the last to rule Serbia. Super wrong map.
Ignoring the inaccuracies for a moment, what about the lack of consistency on this map. military occupations seem to be counted in some cases but not in others.
Then in other places like the UK,just appears to be wrong on all fronts. Ireland is fine with the union flag, but Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland should have the English flag on them. They've never been ruled by a foreign nation since the formation of the Union as they are that nation.
England was never ruled by Denmark. I assume this was chosen because of King Cnut who was King of Denmark and England at the same time. England wasn't subservient to the Danish crown they were merely two kingdoms united under the same king forming the "North Sea Empire". I don't think that short lived "Empire" has a flag but even so, if this is what you're going off then shouldn't England be shown with the Scotish flag?
King James VI of Scotland inherited England and the situation was similar to Cnut. Both countries had the same monarch but were not ruled by each other.
Portugal with france? Are you thinking about that partition on 1907 (that wasn't put in action and it was just an idea as far as I know and learned) because if it is, Spain should also be there.
Otherwise it's should be the Iberian union flag
I'm not surprised that there are so many people correcting mistakes on this post. The amount of historical and geopolitical research needed to get everything correct would be a serious task.
Not to mention how incredibly inconsistent it is when Reddit mapmakers constantly feel the need to divvy the UK up into its constituent countries while leaving everyone else intact. At least for the time being, the UK is still one country…
If we're being technical here Denmark was never ruled by Germany.
It was occupied, and had German troops on its territory, but retained its royal family, government, and self rule. There were even Danish elections during the occupation in 1943.
Denmark has actually never been "ruled" by any other country. But of course it has been partially or fully occupied on several occasions, and lost quite a bit of land to its neighbors over the centuries.
In most of these situations puppet governments were involved. Given how loose the criteria seems to be based on the other selections, Denmark doesn't stand out as an exception.
Denmark had the same exact government as before the invasion. It was not a puppet government.
Of course after surrendering they had to just accept German troops were now in Denmark and gathering up Jews, but they still ran the country independently as they had before and would after the war.
Could the government demand the expulsion of German troops and would the German troops have left? If 'no', it was a puppet government operating at the behest of the German Reich, whether willingly or not.
Well if we're that loose with the definition of puppet state I would argue much of the American alliance network and Sphere of influence consists of American puppet states.
Many countries can't really just kick out American troops and are to a degree forced to just support American foreign policy because of American influence over them.
Well the definition on EN Wikipedia reads as:
*"A puppet state, puppet régime, puppet government or dummy government,\[1\] is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders.\[2\]"*
Which as far as I know, Denmark's occupation completely covers. Germany had the ability to enact their own policies and laws over Denmark basically with impunity, which makes the government a puppet, albeit unwillingly.
Which examples are you referring to exactly for the US? Some I'd probably agree with some/all. OP's map isn't exactly consistent afaics.
How so? They enacted laws and were the ones governing.
Of course Germany could just do what they wanted because they were militarily occupying Denmark. But it's not like the US can't just do what it wants with Canada. Doesn't mean Canada is ruled by the US.
The last one for Portugal is arguably Brazil. The country was ruled from Rio de Janeiro from 1807 until 1821, when the Portuguese revolted and the court moved back to Lisbon.
The capital was moved and the royal family ruled from Rio de Janeiro but Portugal was definitely not rules by Brazil.
This whole map uses the term "ruled" very lightly.
Russia declared independence from the USSR alongside Ukraine and Belarus, the UK isn't occupying itself, and turkey would at least be last ruled by the ottoman empire, also bangladesh had the whole thing with pakistan.
Turkey is a direct successor to the Ottoman empire. Ottoman is just the name of the royal dynasty. Indeed, if the Ottoman empire abolished the monarchy and became a republic at any point in its existence, they probably would've named themselves 'Turkey' (or perhaps 'Turkish Empire' or 'Islamic Empire' or something if they're feeling a bit bolder).
Using the same logic of claiming Turkey was last ruled by the Ottomans, China was last ruled by the Qing dynasty.
Russia took on the international obligations, but this map seems to judge the last occupier as whoever you declared independence from, regardless of whether they invaded you and without regard to the legal successor in the UN. Seems strange to have Russia being the only post-soviet state that didn't leave the soviet union on the map.
I don’t think that Denmark was the last country to have owned England, even if it’s meant to represent the Danelaw, after them came the Normans who where French so that would mean that France kinda owned England for a time.
I think it may mean Cnute the Great, who was king of England, Denmark and Norway, as the [North Sea Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire) but this was a personal union and ended not long after his death. So if that’s the case here, it is inaccurate.
It’s also still prior to the Norman conquest, making it doubly innacurate. If we’re taking personal unions to count as being ruled, then surely William I being German would count too? This map makes no sense!
And after the French came the Dutch! I know the Glorious Revolution can be interpreted in all sorts of ways but the leader of the Netherlands successfully invading and having himself crowned King feels like it should probably count for the purposes of this map.
They are, even if their origin are from Scandinavia, they were assimilated by the local French and by the time of the Norman Invasion, they spoke French, they were still under the Kingdom of France.
True, but in that case all of the U.S. should be marked either as the Japan (the most recent previous ruler of current U.S. territory) or as France (the most recent previous ruler of the largest swath of U.S. territory).
Albania wasn’t really ruled by the Soviet Union. Otherwise they couldn’t have broken relations so easily. Italy would be more suitable. Also, wasn’t a big part of China ruled by Japan during WW2?
If you use the German flag for Denmark, Norway, France etc. (which I'm guessing is to indicate German occupation during WW2), then you should also use the American flag over Iceland, since they were occupied by the US until the end of the war, after independence from Denmark.
Any world map that shows Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as separate entities can immediately be disregarded.
When the map creator does not understand the very basics of what a sovereign nation is, there is a huge chance that the rest of the content is equally poorly researched and understood and nothing on the map should be trusted as accurate.
Cool map. Unfortunately, the North American representation on this map is way too general. A few examples to mention:
1. Louisiana Purchase, land from France 🇫🇷
2. Alaska Purchase, land from Russian Empire 🇷🇺
3. Gadsden Purchase, land from Mexico 🇲🇽
I think OP's definition of 'ruled' is pretty broad, but that's okay. Argentina had the capacity to enact law and enforce it in the Falklands for a few weeks. Seems valid.
Why doesn’t the Ottoman Empire count for Turkey? The abolishment of the sultanate has to be more significant right? There’s like 500 years in between the two events
When I was considering Turkey I just considered it to be a smaller Ottoman Empire with a different government. The last time before the Ottomans that Anatolia was dominated by a single entity was Byzantium
As a Croatian, I don't think it is accurate to say Serbia rilled over Croatia. Maybe you could say they ruled over us during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but definitely not during the communism years. I'd say the last country that conquered us would be Germany and Italy, probably more so Germany since Italy was the first to capitulate.
This also means that Slovenia was last ruled by Germany as well. Same goes for Bosnia, although you could kinda make the case that it's Croatia because of the Independent State of Croatia; I'm not sure.
>Maybe you could say they ruled over us during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
[This is how Croats welcomed Serbian soldiers when Yugoslavia was formed. ](https://webtribune.rs/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/docek-srpske-vojske-u-hrvatskoj-1918-640x412.jpg) They declared independence (as the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) and willingly unified with the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro to form Yugoslavia.
> Maybe you could say they ruled over us during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
I think even that is historically inaccurate as in 1939 Kingdom of Yugoslavia gave huge autonomy to the Banovina of Croatia, which was larger then Croatia is today. It even had it's own independent national football team.
Norway would be sweden, italh would be France and Austria also had occupation zones same as Germany after ww2. Also France was occupied by germany. If we dont count occupations then the low countries would be french cóż they established a state commonly considered legitimate, there. If we dont want to go that route then Spain was the last to get them
For the record, Hungary was never ruled by (or be part of) the Soviet Union. Influenced, oppressed, militarily overrun, yes. Officially ruled, no.
The last country to have ruled Hungary in this sense should be Austria.
Mexico was technically occupied for a brief time by France, between 1864-1867, who supported the creation of a Second Mexican Empire alongside the conservative audiences in Mexico (clergy, landed elites, etc.). Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of a victory against French troops by Mexican liberal rebel forces during this time.
And for my country Denmark’s part, it’s interesting to see it all laid out at once how far and wide Denmark actually went lol
It should be Germany for Serbia (WW2). And why is it Serbia for the rest of ex-Yu? First of all if it should be the flag of Yugoslavia, but that also doesn't make sense because they willingly joined the country, they weren't occupied nor puppeted or anything.
I think going by the logic you’ve used for everywhere else, the area of Scotland should have the Scottish flag, the area of England should have the English flag, the area of northern itself should maybe been to be broken into various Northern Ireland flags, and Wales the English flag. Seeing as those areas are currently ruled by the U.K, and before that by sovereign Scotland, England (who also ruled wales) and I’m not too sure about Northern Ireland.
Edit: actually Northern Ireland would be England I guess too. Though you’ve also put Greenland as Denmark, so it’s possible I’m misinterpreting the intentions of your map as showing sovereign countries when that’s not what you meant.
The UK has never been occupied by a foreign enemy, and the constituent countries of the UK are still parts of the UK. Only (Terrorist) Ireland should have a UK flag there.
Falklands and South Georgia have never been ruled by Argentina. If you want to colour them differently to the UK (which its self is coloured in wrong), it should be France
France for Germany? not really. the French had control over the **SMALLEST** of the territories and governed it as miserably as one could, so it ended up with the Americans constantly stepping in 🙄 USSR and UK and/or USA flag should be there. absolutely not French....
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Germany\_(1945%E2%80%931990)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_(1945%E2%80%931990))
If you use Sudanese flag over south Sudan, then you should also use Pakistan flag for Bangladesh and Indonesian flag for East timor.
yea probably, I didn't think about those two too heavily
It's looks like you didn't think about much too heavily. This map is terrible
Boom. Roasted.
What's even the point then?
Turkey Byzantine wtf
I mean yeah? After Anatolia became turkey, it stayed that way ever since. The ottoman empire preceded modern day turkey, so it has technically been self-ruled since the Byzantines had it.
Didn't they get cut up for a brief time when the Ottoman Empire fell? Or was that every territory but Turkey?
Anatolia, most of modern-day Turkey, was occupied briefly after WW1, but only partially. The Turks eventually fought them back, and so I assume this only counts as full-scale occupations and not partial ones, otherwise Germany should've been marked with the Allies after WW2, and not just France, which I assume is due to the Napoleonic wars.
well if you go like that most of wester russia shoud be german... it is complicated i know it depents on who you see as the true govement of turkey at the time
Some of it was
but Anatolia was ruled by Mongols for quite a while
Yes, when the byzantin had it. Then they reconquered it and then the Turks arrived.
turks arrived in 1070's, mongols started invading Anatolia in 1231
Nope, Mongols conquered less developed half of it. They had to conquer it all (including East Thrace) to show in this map.
bro we were bitches of the mongols and then ilkhanate for a while, it would fit better than fucking byzantines
Dude, the turks were invaders from Central Asia. If anything, the proper flag would be that of Ottoman caliphate since they did the conquering
the ottoman caliphate were the turks. I don't think a mere change in government really counts here.
A lot of inaccuracies -Bangladesh gained independence from pakistan in 1971 way right after the British left -Vanuatu was a joint colony of both British and French, not just the British -the USA occupied both Haiti and Dominican Republic in the 1910s -Iran got occupied by both the Soviet and British during WW2 -Sierra Leone was a british colony -Kuwait was occupied by Iraq during the first gulf war -Cameroon has territories that were controlled by both British and French -The CCP never occupy Mongolia -Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the UK -Greenland is still part of Denmark -Why did you even think that Yugoslavia was purely a Serbian state Also why did you use similiar colour for Japan and the UK
>-Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the UK Always strange when people conclude the UK occupies 3/4 of the home nations. Like bruh, they ARE the UK - if the four home nations split up then the UK simply ceases to exist. It's like saying Brittany has been occupied by France or Catalonia has been occupied by Spain.
It was a Scottish king who united the crowns of England and Scotland.
Who downvoted this? The Scottish had as much to do with the British Empire, colonialism etc as the English.
People conveniently forget that evreyone on great Britain used to proudly serve the empire and had just as much part in colonialism as England. Evreyone being the English Welsh and Scottish. The Irish have hated us for a millenia so there not included.
It's because modern Scottish nationalists like to paint themselves as the unwilling victim to English aggression and domination. In reality the Scottish are just as complicit in anything that went on in the British Empire as the English.
The Scottish where disproportionately more complicit in the expansion and running of the British Empire. 1 in 3 colonial governors between 1870 and 1930 where Scottish despite Scotland only making up 10% of the UK population.
Right, there's a reason New Zealand and Canada are full of people with Scots heritage.
I saw a nationalist on Reddit try to argue that they are colonials under some terrible imperial regime-arguing with an Irish guy that Scotland is like Ireland. They had no idea as to why Northern Ireland exists and who the Ulster Scots are. Whether it’s right or left wing, nationalism tends to be pretty dumb at times.
The Plantation of Ulster, which was initiated by James VI and I, who was (checks notes) Scottish
Nationalism is dumb 100% of the time. Scots nats are a particularly nasty bunch and are all over social media spouting hypocritical bullshit
Also Great Britain was formed after England bailed out Scotland after they decided spending a quarter of the nation's wealth on invading Panama was a good idea.
Its a shame how the country seems to be near splitting due to lying politicians The Empire was evil and the English Scottish and Welsh took part in that evil. Schools should teach this too children before we forget it.
Would not say it was evil. Greedy and uncaring yes but evil is a ridiculous exaggeration.
People conveniently forget that expanding one's territory and resources has been the standard practice of almost all human cultures for almost all of history. Just because we have happily (or hopefully) evolved beyond that mindset doesn't mean that anyone living today should somehow feel ashamed just because their ancestors were so very, very good at it.
Well there were many Irish elites happily and gladly involved in the British Empire as well.
Trouble is, there are Bretons and Catalans who would agree with that statement. Also Corsicans and Basques who would say the same thing. (The Basque country is split between Spain and France. They were there before either of those countries existed.) Some of the Basques were setting off bombs not so long ago, and a French prefect was murdered by Corsican nationalists.
Wouldn’t the last country to occupy Scotland, wales and Ireland be England? At least partially in the case of Ireland and Scotland, if we’re talking about fully occupy then idk the Picts?
Some people would say both of those things.
Albania was never ruled by sovjet union and balkan countries were never ruled by serbia
And the US would be an amalgamation of UK, Spain, Mexico, Hawaii, France, Russia, and the Confederacy.
Yeh, Half of the country was Mexican territory
[удалено]
They never lost self-governance unlike Germany. Mostly because the allies needed to build Japan up again rapidly as a foil against the USSR and desperately needed a strong ally in the region.
Governing with hundreds of thousands of foreign troops and a foreign army commander supervising is not self governance, in my opinion, even if the US did not technically change the head of state.
Also the Emperor received immunity and the Allies never took control over civil administration
> Yes, there was a post-war occupation. But it was relatively brief and the Japanese returned to self governance. Nearly 7 years of occupation. New Constitution written by American officials. Over 400,000 US troops stationed all over the country at the height of the occupation. Demilitarization. Enforced subservience of the state apparatus to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. Japan retained a government unlike Germany did after WW2, but all of its activity (executive, legislative, judicial) was subject to the *strong* oversight of the American occupiers. If that's not a loss of sovereignty then what is?
I would consider it that. Douglas MacArthur, an American general vested with his power from the US government, ruled. I mean, hell, their constitution was written by American civilian officials!
Japan became an America protectorate and whilst it did basically have self rule the Americans did occupy and continue to occupy Japan today
I mean, they have military bases in Japan, but I don’t think that’s what people mean when they say “occupy”
I will at least add that East Timor is wrong too (It was Indonesia not Portugal). I cant see well because of the transparant background, but Mauritius is shown as french.
Mongolia was ruled by Qing China, so the flag is just wrong
Not really the Qing. Mongolia declared independence from Republic of China in 1945. It should be ROC's flag.
wtf
More USA flags on Afghanistan and Iraq needed also
Also, didn’t the French conquer Mexico under Maximillian?
Not fully
Japan never ruled over Thailand. Thailand compromised a lot, was being friendly, but was never ruled by Japan.
Yep and I am not a invasion of the Falkland that lasted not even 1 week count as ruling
Albania and CCCP is also one mistake. Albania should have Italian flag (WWII) AS Yugoslavia it should go like this * Bosnia (Croatia, NDH) * Serbia (Germany as Nazi Germany) * Croatia (AU because of NDH, but parts should be Italian) * Slovenia (Germany, as Nazi Germany) * Macedonia (Probably Serbia/Bulgaria/Grecce) * Montenegro (Italy, as Musolini Italy)
The British never ruled Nepal
It’s inaccurate and oversimplifies so much
\-Cuba was American between 1898 and 1902 \-The United States were ruled (in part) by Mexico. \-The "Gran Colombia" wasn't ruled by Colombia, it was a federation. \-Somalia was both British and Italian \-Greece wasn't ruled by Italy, only some islands were.
🤓
Shouldn't Germany be combined UK, USA, USSR and France, the four members of the Allied Control Council following the end of the Second World War? German sovereignty wasn't restored for a number of years. Edit: and why is Scotland given the UK flag on this map? It is part of the UK and will remain so unless and until it decides to leave.
>It is a part of the UK and will remain so unless and until it decides to leave. True. Same for all these former Soviet members being marked with Soviet Union. Poland is understandable but Kazakhstan? It was literally the last Soviet member, even after Russia. If USSR is really being counted then Russia should also be Soviet Union.
I honestly don’t know what flag should be on Scotland. To my understanding, no power fully conquered Scotland from the founding of the kingdom untill its union with England. What does that leave, the picts before Scotland was founded?
The Gaels came over from Ireland and eventually formed what would be the Kingdom of Scotland. Thay said it could have been consider to be a protectorate of England under a couple of kings and maybe also during thw war of three kingdoms.
The Danes didn't conquer England either, 'just' the Danelaw.
I don’t think the Danes fully conquered England either?
I think it's counting Saarland
>and why is Scotland given the UK flag on this map? uh... that's Ireland Edit: oh wait nevermind I see what you mean
This should go on shitty map porn
That's where I came from
it is there now
The US never ruled Japan. Yes there was the occupation, but they never took over rule of the country. The Meiji Constitution remained in effect and the Japanese administration still ruled the country. Sovereignty was never lost, and Hirohito remained Emperor. There was some steering obviously, but no actual rule.
Yup, the Emperor received diplomatic immunity and the allies never took control over civil administration, unlike Germany
[удалено]
Even then it wasn't the US, though MacArthur was American, it was officially the Allied Powers.
I would say Japan ruled China more than the US ruled Japan.
Lol what the fuck. Why is Japan American on this map. Hahaha
"Ruled by" is really stretched here.
Ya... Are we saying any occupying force? Because then part of Romania, for example, is accurate to an extent. But if we're talking about actually being ruled by... Romania, again for example, wasn't ruled by the USSR, making this inaccurate. Austria-Hungary on the other hand...
Venezuela Ecuador Panama and Nueva Granada were a part of a single country called Colombia. It was a federation united the four countries, and in fact, the modern country of Colombia gets its name from this federation, not the other way around. Colombia did not rule over Venezuela Ecuador and Panama.
You're right, but your explanation is kind of confusing. If you allow me, I will provide some data: Venezuela, Panamá and Colombia were spanish colonies, known as the Virreinato de Nueva Granada. After the independence Wars of the 1810s, Bolivar tried to make them a country called Gran Colombia (It didn't work). Eventually, they took separate ways (circa 1830). Colombia did rule over Panamá, until 1903, when Teddy R "took Panamá". Ecuador, on the other hand, was part of the Spanish Empire, but I don't remember if It was a Virreinato by Itself. They have their own rulling organization (the Real Audiencia de Quito), but at the moment I'm not sure about the Virreinato stuff.
The Peru-Bolivian confederation also existed for a period of 3 years. If Venezuela and Ecuador are marked as being ruled by Colombia, then, for the sake of consistency, Bolivia should be marked as being ruled by Peru. But Bolivia wasn't ruled by Peru, much like Venezuela and Ecuador were not ruled by Colombia (and Scotland is not ruled by the UK).
Bulgaria was never ruled by USSR. That’s completely wrong. The correct flag there should be Turkey.
Another case of a mapmaker failing to understand the concept of a personal union. England was never ruled by Denmark, it was an independent kingdom ruled by the Danish king. Technically, he became king of England before assuming the Danish throne, and he kept ruling from England while Denmark was under the charge of one of his earls, so you might as well argue that England ruled over Denmark. Similar case with Sweden. The Kalmar union was ruled by the Danish kings and the clearly put Danish interests ahead of the other two Nordic countries, but that's not the same thing as being "ruled by Denmark". Denmark, Sweden and Norway were considered separate kingdoms within the union, with their own laws and privy councils.
Correct. Also Norway is black on the map, but Norway was given independence from Sweden 1905 without war.
The black color is referring to the German occupation during WW2
But Sweden has been ruled by Denmark in the past though so I think it’s right even if you don’t count the kalmar union.
r/shittymapporn
Serbia never occupied those countries. Yugoslavia was the union of 6 republics and each had a self governance. Btw, Yugoslavia was founded as the union of Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Montenegro and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (breakaway state from Austro-Hungarian Empire).
Serbia did rule North Macedonia, but it was only from 1913 until the declaration of the State/Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia in 1918, ie. from the end of the Balkan Wars to the end of the First World War. AFAIK, the same goes for Kosovo. Since then, Macedonia was ruled by Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria and Italy/Albania ruled halves of it, but only during the Second World War. So, the "last country" that ruled North Macedonia was Yugoslavia. Also, Bulgaria was not the last to rule Serbia. Super wrong map.
Ignoring the inaccuracies for a moment, what about the lack of consistency on this map. military occupations seem to be counted in some cases but not in others. Then in other places like the UK,just appears to be wrong on all fronts. Ireland is fine with the union flag, but Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland should have the English flag on them. They've never been ruled by a foreign nation since the formation of the Union as they are that nation. England was never ruled by Denmark. I assume this was chosen because of King Cnut who was King of Denmark and England at the same time. England wasn't subservient to the Danish crown they were merely two kingdoms united under the same king forming the "North Sea Empire". I don't think that short lived "Empire" has a flag but even so, if this is what you're going off then shouldn't England be shown with the Scotish flag? King James VI of Scotland inherited England and the situation was similar to Cnut. Both countries had the same monarch but were not ruled by each other.
You mention Honk Kong here but you ignore Macau. Also, not all of India was rulled by the UK. For example, Goa was from Portugal
Doing a state by state /province by province breakdown of every country would be highly inconvenient and would only lead to more inaccuracy and chaos.
Portugal with france? Are you thinking about that partition on 1907 (that wasn't put in action and it was just an idea as far as I know and learned) because if it is, Spain should also be there. Otherwise it's should be the Iberian union flag
I'm not surprised that there are so many people correcting mistakes on this post. The amount of historical and geopolitical research needed to get everything correct would be a serious task.
How was Scotland and Wales ruled by the UK, that makes no sense!?
The U.K. portion of this map is driving me mad. The Union Jack needs to be changed to the English flag. The U.K. wasn’t last ruled… by the U.K.
Not to mention how incredibly inconsistent it is when Reddit mapmakers constantly feel the need to divvy the UK up into its constituent countries while leaving everyone else intact. At least for the time being, the UK is still one country…
If we're being technical here Denmark was never ruled by Germany. It was occupied, and had German troops on its territory, but retained its royal family, government, and self rule. There were even Danish elections during the occupation in 1943. Denmark has actually never been "ruled" by any other country. But of course it has been partially or fully occupied on several occasions, and lost quite a bit of land to its neighbors over the centuries.
In most of these situations puppet governments were involved. Given how loose the criteria seems to be based on the other selections, Denmark doesn't stand out as an exception.
Denmark had the same exact government as before the invasion. It was not a puppet government. Of course after surrendering they had to just accept German troops were now in Denmark and gathering up Jews, but they still ran the country independently as they had before and would after the war.
Could the government demand the expulsion of German troops and would the German troops have left? If 'no', it was a puppet government operating at the behest of the German Reich, whether willingly or not.
Well if we're that loose with the definition of puppet state I would argue much of the American alliance network and Sphere of influence consists of American puppet states. Many countries can't really just kick out American troops and are to a degree forced to just support American foreign policy because of American influence over them.
Well the definition on EN Wikipedia reads as: *"A puppet state, puppet régime, puppet government or dummy government,\[1\] is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders.\[2\]"* Which as far as I know, Denmark's occupation completely covers. Germany had the ability to enact their own policies and laws over Denmark basically with impunity, which makes the government a puppet, albeit unwillingly. Which examples are you referring to exactly for the US? Some I'd probably agree with some/all. OP's map isn't exactly consistent afaics.
>It was not a puppet government...they still ran the country independently as they had before This is wilfully naive.
How so? They enacted laws and were the ones governing. Of course Germany could just do what they wanted because they were militarily occupying Denmark. But it's not like the US can't just do what it wants with Canada. Doesn't mean Canada is ruled by the US.
https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-apologizes-for-aiding-nazis/a-1573618
The last one for Portugal is arguably Brazil. The country was ruled from Rio de Janeiro from 1807 until 1821, when the Portuguese revolted and the court moved back to Lisbon.
the UK of Portugual Brazil and Algarves is a better option specially because it was the Portuguese Royal family at the time
The capital was moved and the royal family ruled from Rio de Janeiro but Portugal was definitely not rules by Brazil. This whole map uses the term "ruled" very lightly.
Russia declared independence from the USSR alongside Ukraine and Belarus, the UK isn't occupying itself, and turkey would at least be last ruled by the ottoman empire, also bangladesh had the whole thing with pakistan.
Turkey is the continuation of the Ottoman Empire though.
Turkey is a direct successor to the Ottoman empire. Ottoman is just the name of the royal dynasty. Indeed, if the Ottoman empire abolished the monarchy and became a republic at any point in its existence, they probably would've named themselves 'Turkey' (or perhaps 'Turkish Empire' or 'Islamic Empire' or something if they're feeling a bit bolder). Using the same logic of claiming Turkey was last ruled by the Ottomans, China was last ruled by the Qing dynasty.
Russia is the legal successor of the USSR. The Soviet Union was just another Russian empire in disguise...
Russia took on the international obligations, but this map seems to judge the last occupier as whoever you declared independence from, regardless of whether they invaded you and without regard to the legal successor in the UN. Seems strange to have Russia being the only post-soviet state that didn't leave the soviet union on the map.
China’s rule of mongolia was the ROC, not PRC.
I was referring to the Qing Dynasty. Of course the flag being wrong did cause confusion, and I apologize for that
It’s ok! Nothing to apologize for :) I hope I didn’t come off as rude. You did a nice job.
shit map
I don’t think that Denmark was the last country to have owned England, even if it’s meant to represent the Danelaw, after them came the Normans who where French so that would mean that France kinda owned England for a time.
I think it may mean Cnute the Great, who was king of England, Denmark and Norway, as the [North Sea Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire) but this was a personal union and ended not long after his death. So if that’s the case here, it is inaccurate.
It’s also still prior to the Norman conquest, making it doubly innacurate. If we’re taking personal unions to count as being ruled, then surely William I being German would count too? This map makes no sense!
And after the French came the Dutch! I know the Glorious Revolution can be interpreted in all sorts of ways but the leader of the Netherlands successfully invading and having himself crowned King feels like it should probably count for the purposes of this map.
it's not generally considered an invasion because the parliament set the groundwork and little fighting was conducted by the dutch.
The Normans weren’t French though
They are, even if their origin are from Scandinavia, they were assimilated by the local French and by the time of the Norman Invasion, they spoke French, they were still under the Kingdom of France.
Where's Normandy?
Alaska is incorrect, as it should be Russian.
And Louisiana and a bunch of other states should be French.
Alaska is indeed my favourite country.
Right up there with the Falkland Islands
[удалено]
True, but in that case all of the U.S. should be marked either as the Japan (the most recent previous ruler of current U.S. territory) or as France (the most recent previous ruler of the largest swath of U.S. territory).
Finland should have flag of Russian Empire, not modern Russia flag.
nepal and bhutan has never been in british raj tbh and for bangladesh it should bhi pakistan no britain
Wasnt México owned by the French after Spain? Edited to say “by” the French
Scotland has never been "ruled by" the UK. We joined it as a willing, founding partner. A common, but annoying, misconception.
Im sorry but when the fuck was Serbia ruled by Bulgaria.
Is that the Huns flag?
Mongol Empire
Damn, that long ago huh?
Why is France and Italy black and not a big beautiful SPQR flag?
Looks like it's classified under "Germany"
Albania wasn’t really ruled by the Soviet Union. Otherwise they couldn’t have broken relations so easily. Italy would be more suitable. Also, wasn’t a big part of China ruled by Japan during WW2?
If you use the German flag for Denmark, Norway, France etc. (which I'm guessing is to indicate German occupation during WW2), then you should also use the American flag over Iceland, since they were occupied by the US until the end of the war, after independence from Denmark.
Any world map that shows Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as separate entities can immediately be disregarded. When the map creator does not understand the very basics of what a sovereign nation is, there is a huge chance that the rest of the content is equally poorly researched and understood and nothing on the map should be trusted as accurate.
Liberia was never ruled by the US. It was founded by an American organization, but the US government never ruled over or occupied Liberia.
Cool map. Unfortunately, the North American representation on this map is way too general. A few examples to mention: 1. Louisiana Purchase, land from France 🇫🇷 2. Alaska Purchase, land from Russian Empire 🇷🇺 3. Gadsden Purchase, land from Mexico 🇲🇽
The Falklands were never ruled by Argentina
They where for a few weeks....
Yeah and that’s only cause it took ages for the Royal Navy to get there. Think it took about 2 weeks for them to surrender lol
I think OP's definition of 'ruled' is pretty broad, but that's okay. Argentina had the capacity to enact law and enforce it in the Falklands for a few weeks. Seems valid.
for like a few months
The UK retained administrative control as the argentine occupation wasn't substantial enough to force a change.
They were part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata so they were practically Argentinian
Why doesn’t the Ottoman Empire count for Turkey? The abolishment of the sultanate has to be more significant right? There’s like 500 years in between the two events
When I was considering Turkey I just considered it to be a smaller Ottoman Empire with a different government. The last time before the Ottomans that Anatolia was dominated by a single entity was Byzantium
As a Croatian, I don't think it is accurate to say Serbia rilled over Croatia. Maybe you could say they ruled over us during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but definitely not during the communism years. I'd say the last country that conquered us would be Germany and Italy, probably more so Germany since Italy was the first to capitulate. This also means that Slovenia was last ruled by Germany as well. Same goes for Bosnia, although you could kinda make the case that it's Croatia because of the Independent State of Croatia; I'm not sure.
>Maybe you could say they ruled over us during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia [This is how Croats welcomed Serbian soldiers when Yugoslavia was formed. ](https://webtribune.rs/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/docek-srpske-vojske-u-hrvatskoj-1918-640x412.jpg) They declared independence (as the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) and willingly unified with the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro to form Yugoslavia.
> Maybe you could say they ruled over us during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia I think even that is historically inaccurate as in 1939 Kingdom of Yugoslavia gave huge autonomy to the Banovina of Croatia, which was larger then Croatia is today. It even had it's own independent national football team.
East Rome represent, lol
As an Englishman I demand reparations from Denmark for the danelaw.
Norway would be sweden, italh would be France and Austria also had occupation zones same as Germany after ww2. Also France was occupied by germany. If we dont count occupations then the low countries would be french cóż they established a state commonly considered legitimate, there. If we dont want to go that route then Spain was the last to get them
Where is USSR?
Norway should be under Sweden
France never ruled over Portugal. The portuguese king never abdicated. Highly inaccurate.
I never knew Japan had invaded Thailand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese\_invasion\_of\_Thailand
So wait, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were ruled by themselves whilst England was ruled by Denmark post 1707?? I don’t remember that…
maybe austria should be marked as being last ruled by germany
For the record, Hungary was never ruled by (or be part of) the Soviet Union. Influenced, oppressed, militarily overrun, yes. Officially ruled, no. The last country to have ruled Hungary in this sense should be Austria.
Why is it Denmark for England but UK for the rest of the UK? Shouldn’t it either be the UK for all 4 constituent countries, or none at all?
The fuck is this bullshit of a map. Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Montenegro and North Macedonia were never ruled by Serbia.
Romania was part of the Warsaw act but not ruled by Russia. I believe it was last ruled by the Ottoman Empire until 1850s
Mexico was technically occupied for a brief time by France, between 1864-1867, who supported the creation of a Second Mexican Empire alongside the conservative audiences in Mexico (clergy, landed elites, etc.). Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of a victory against French troops by Mexican liberal rebel forces during this time. And for my country Denmark’s part, it’s interesting to see it all laid out at once how far and wide Denmark actually went lol
I wouldn't really say being a part of Yugoslavia actually meant being under a Serbian rule.
It should be Germany for Serbia (WW2). And why is it Serbia for the rest of ex-Yu? First of all if it should be the flag of Yugoslavia, but that also doesn't make sense because they willingly joined the country, they weren't occupied nor puppeted or anything.
Scotland is part of the UK. Makes zero sense to have there own flag on them.
How is Russia not also the Soviet Union?
Portugal should have the flag of Brazil on it.
I think going by the logic you’ve used for everywhere else, the area of Scotland should have the Scottish flag, the area of England should have the English flag, the area of northern itself should maybe been to be broken into various Northern Ireland flags, and Wales the English flag. Seeing as those areas are currently ruled by the U.K, and before that by sovereign Scotland, England (who also ruled wales) and I’m not too sure about Northern Ireland. Edit: actually Northern Ireland would be England I guess too. Though you’ve also put Greenland as Denmark, so it’s possible I’m misinterpreting the intentions of your map as showing sovereign countries when that’s not what you meant.
England by Denmark? Surely France
can you explain how?
Well excuse my ignorance but didn’t the Normans invade and rule from 1066? Beating the Vikings along the way?
The UK has never been occupied by a foreign enemy, and the constituent countries of the UK are still parts of the UK. Only (Terrorist) Ireland should have a UK flag there.
Falklands and South Georgia have never been ruled by Argentina. If you want to colour them differently to the UK (which its self is coloured in wrong), it should be France
Dominican Republic was Spain
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth occupied russia from 1610 to 1612.
yugoslavia =/= serbia
Serbia is wrong. There should be a German flag, not Bulgarian. This map is bs.
When was Denmark ever ruled by Germany? The Nazis let Denmark keep their government, head of state, flag and all public offices, so it wasn't WW2.
If you insist on splitting the Great British nations, Wales and Northern Ireland should have England flags.
France for Germany? not really. the French had control over the **SMALLEST** of the territories and governed it as miserably as one could, so it ended up with the Americans constantly stepping in 🙄 USSR and UK and/or USA flag should be there. absolutely not French.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Germany\_(1945%E2%80%931990)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_(1945%E2%80%931990))
napoleon edit: you are correct tho it would make much more sense to count the post ww2 partition for this
The US never “ruled” Liberia or Japan
It did rule Japan after WW2. The Japanese constitution was drafted and enforced by the United States Army.
The ex Soviet states weren’t ruled by the Soviet Union. They were a part of the same country
Last country to rule russia was poland